Mark Baker says:
> These statements seem inconsistent to me. The latter seems to be
saying
> that it's ok to have a safe operation which isn't GET as long as it's
> marked as safe, while the former says that in general (modulo the
> described practical considerations), the only safe operation should be
> GET.
I don't see an inconsistency. There are many devils in the "practical
considerations" details: Since not all safe operations can be
practically bound to GET, and *empircally* not all GETs are safe (e.g.
in a "pay by the megabyte" wireless environment), there is a use case
for marking application-level operations as safe or not. Also, WSDL is
designed to be independent of HTTP, so there is a use case for marking
operations as safe so that this information can be preserved if there
is no concept of safeness in some other protocol binding.